Pages

Assange blasts ‘perverse transnational totalitarianism’ – interview

Published: 31 August, 2012

Screenshot from Julian Assange's interview with TV channel teleSUR.

The West’s “perverse” empire is leading to the collapse of human rights, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said. The whistleblower, currently holed up in the UK’s Ecuadorian embassy, expects to leave in a year if Sweden drops its case against him.

"The Swedish government could drop the case. I think this is the most likely scenario. Maybe after a thorough investigation of what happened they could drop the case,” Assange said, adding that he hopes his case will be solved through diplomacy “in between six and 12 months.”

During the interview with Venezuelan TV station teleSUR from London’s Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange condemned an “avalanche of totalitarianism” incited by the US government. He argued that democracy in Western countries is an illusion, and that the constant surveillance of citizens is leading to the creation of a “transnational totalitarian state.”

“This is an international phenomenon that isn’t just happening in the US, it’s bigger than the US and it’s taking us to a dark place,” Assange said. He alleged that human rights in the West are undergoing a severe deterioration, and that the public is being influenced by “massive press manipulation.”

Though the US denies the existence of a Supreme Court espionage case against Assange, there is overwhelming evidence that they are preparing such a lawsuit, he said.

Likening the US reaction to the leaking of thousands of diplomatic cables to a playground spat, Assange claimed that he is part of a larger US crackdown on WikiLeaks. He believes the US first moved against his organizations over information they published on civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

“The US armed forces have assassinated thousands of people [in Afghanistan], and indirectly 20,000 people according to its own files. … They have spilt the blood of men, women, children and their own soldiers over Afghanistan,” he said.

Though no government has charged WikiLeaks with any deaths, the US maintains that the organization “might have blood on its hands.”

“It’s the same as a fight between primary school children. They say that WikiLeaks says that the Pentagon could have murdered thousands of people, so in answer they say that WikiLeaks may have blood on its hands,” Assange said.

Assange praised Ecuador for making the “right decision” in granting him asylum, and expressed gratitude to the Latin American nations that had rallied to his support. He dismissed the charges of sexual assault leveled against him, and alleged that Sweden was acting at the behest of Washington and would push to have him extradited to the US.

In an unprecedented move, Assange appealed for asylum at London’s Ecuadorian embassy in June, on the grounds of political persecution. Although the Ecuadorian government granted the appeal, the WikiLeaks founder is effectively stuck in the Embassy – UK authorities have vowed to arrest him if he leaves the building.

The UK government claims it is obligated to comply with the Swedish extradition order that has been issued against Assange.Screenshot from Julian Assange's interview with TV channel teleSUR.

Amnesty run by US State Department representatives, funded by convicted financial criminals, and threatens real human rights advocacy worldwide.

Image: From Amnesty International USA's website, "Free Pussy Riot." "Help Amnesty International send a truckload of balaclavas to Putin." This childish stunt smacks of US State Department-funded Gene Sharp antics - and meshes directly with the US State Department's goal of undermining the Russian government via its troupe of US-funded "opposition activists" including "Pussy Riot." That Amnesty is supporting the US State Department's agenda should be no surprise, it is run literally by the US State Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, Suzanne Nossel.

....

Mistakenly considered by many as the final word on human rights worldwide, it might surprise people to know that Amnesty International is in fact one of the greatest obstacles to real human rights advocacy on Earth. In its most recent 2012 annual report (page 4, .pdf), Amnesty reiterates one of the biggest lies it routinely tells:

"Amnesty International is funded mainly by its membership and public donations. No funds are sought or accepted from governments for investigating and campaigning against human rights abuses. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion."

This is categorically false. Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.

Amnesty International's Funding

Finding financial information on Amnesty International's website is made purposefully difficult - specifically to protect the myth that the organization is "independent." Like any organized criminal operation, Amnesty separates compromising financial ties through a series of legal maneuvers and shell organizations. Upon Amnesty's website it states:

"The work carried out through Amnesty International's International Secretariat is organised into two legal entities, in compliance with United Kingdom law. These are Amnesty International Limited ("AIL") and Amnesty International Charity Limited ("AICL"). Amnesty International Limited undertakes charitable activities on behalf of Amnesty International Charity Limited, a registered charity."

And it is there, at Amnesty International Limited, where ties to both governments and corporate-financier interests are kept. On page 11 of Amnesty International Limited's 2011 Report and Financial Statement (.pdf) it states (emphasis added):

"The Directors are pleased to acknowledge the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Oak Foundation, Open Society Georgia Foundation, the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Programme, Mauro Tunes and American Jewish World Service. The UK Department for International Development (Governance and Transparency Fund) continued to fund a four year human rights education project in Africa. The European Commission (EuropeAid) generously awarded a multi-year grant towards Amnesty International’s human rights education work in Europe."

Clearly then, Amnesty does take money from both governments and corporate-financier interests.

Amnesty International's Leadership

Amnesty's leadership is also telling of its true agenda. Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, for instance was drawn directly from the US State Department - again, utterly contradicting Amnesty's claims of being "independent" of governments and corporate interests. Nossel continued promoting US foreign policy, but simply behind a podium with a new logo, Amnesty International's logo, attached to it. Amnesty International's website specifically mentions Nossel's role behind US State Department-backed UN resolutions regarding Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cote d'Ivoire.

Image: Same lies, different podium. Suzanne Nossel previously of the US State Department, is now executive director of Amnesty International USA. Her primary function of dressing up aspirations of corporate-financier global hegemony as "human rights advocacy" has not changed.

Amnesty does indeed cover issues that are critical of US foreign policy, toward the bottom of their websites and at the back of their reports. Likewise, the corporate-media selectively reports issues that coincide with their interests while other issues are either under-reported or not reported at all. And it is precisely because Amnesty covers all issues, but selectively emphasizes those that are conducive to the interests of immense corporate-financiers that makes Amnesty one of the greatest impediments to genuine human rights advocacy on Earth.

Images: Manufacturing Dissent. "Free Pussy Riot" (above). Ironically, FIDH is directly funded by the US State Department via the Neo-Con lined US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well as George Soros' Open Society. "Russia: Stop Arms Transfer to Syria!" (below). If the US State Department wants it, be sure that US State Department-run Amnesty International will stage a demonstration for it - and regardless of size or legitimacy of the demonstration, expect the corporate-media to make it headline news.

....

Ordinary people are given the false impression that "someone is watching out" for human rights abuses, when in reality, all Amnesty and other organizations like it are doing, is managing public perception selectively of global human rights abuses, fabricating and/or manipulating many cases specifically to suit the agenda of large corporate-financier interests. This can be seen when entire reports out of Amnesty or Human Rights Watch consist solely of "witness reports" compiled from accounts of US-backed opposition groups.

In the rare instance that a report includes references to actual photographic, video, or documented evidence, such as Human Rights Watch's 2011 "Descent into Chaos" (.pdf) report, deceptive language is intentionally included along with throwaway passages to enable selective reporting and spinning by not only the Western corporate media, but by a myriad of faux-NGOs funded and run by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch's sponsors and affiliates. The Descent into Chaos report, regarding Thailand, was promply and amply spun and manipulated by US State Department-funded faux-NGO and "rights advocate" Prachatai.

When people erroneously believe that credible organizations are handling "rights advocacy" they will not only become complacent, they will become negligent of their own responsibilities to objectively examine potential abuses and speak out against them. Wall Street and London's corporate-financier interests have filled a void - that should be occupied by their greatest opponents - instead with a large advocacy racket of their own creation. Not only are they given a free pass to abuse human rights globally, they've actually used their controlled opposition to attack their opponents.

It is clear that Amnesty International is by no means an "advocate" of human rights, but rather an affront to human rights advocacy. It goes without saying that it should be boycotted out of existence and at the very least, identified as illegitimate and fraudulent - from its funding to its compromised leadership.

Additionally, we the people must tackle real violations of each others rights at the grassroots - because it is absolute folly to believe that global spanning organizations, funded by corporate-financiers, echoing the agenda of governments driven by special interests has our best interests and rights in mind.

While wearing fur clothing in cold weather as protection goes back to the stone age, the source for this material came from the wild. As human populations grew, furs, leathers and hides for use in clothing came from farm stock such as sheep (sheepskin), rabbits, cattle, pigs and goats. The earliest records of breeding mink for fur in North America were in the 1860s. Foxes were first raised on farms for fur in Prince Edward Island in Canada in 1895.

Historically, the fur trade played an important economic role in the United States. Fur trappers explored and opened up large parts of North America, and the fashion for beaver hats led to intense competition for supplies of raw materials. Starting in the latter half of the 20th century, producers and wearers of fur have been criticized by animal rights activist because of the perceived cruelty involved in animal trapping and because the availability of synthetic fibers (from petroleum oil) that competed with natural fibres such as fur and wool.

Today, 80 percent of the fur clothing industry's pelts come from animals raised on farms. The rest is from animals caught in the wild. The most farmed fur-bearing animal is the mink (50 million annually), followed by the fox (about 4 million annually). Asiatic and Finnish raccoon and chinchilla are also farmed for their fur. 64 percent of fur farms are in Northern Europe, 11 percent are in North America, and the rest are dispersed throughout the world, in countries such as Argentina and Russia.

Fur used from animals caught in the wild is not considered farmed fur, and is instead known as 'wild fur'. Most of the world’s farmed fur is produced by European farmers. There are 6,000 fur farms in the EU. The EU accounts for 63% of global mink production and 70% of fox production. Denmark is the leading mink-producing country, accounting for approximately 28% of world production. Other major producers include China, the Netherlands, the Baltic States, and the U.S. Finland is the largest United States supplier of fox pelts. The United States is a major exporter of furskins. Major export markets include China, Russia, Canada, and the EU. Exports to Asia as a share of total exports grew from 22% in 1998 to 47% in 2002. China is the largest importer of fur pelts in the world, therefore making them the largest re-exporter of finished fur products.

Whether it came from an animal on a fur farm or one who was trapped in the wild, every fur coat, trinket, and bit of trim caused an animal tremendous suffering - and took away a life.

Several EU Member States have recognised the inherent cruelty of raising wild animals in intensive confinement and have already taken steps to restrict or ban fur production altogether. Austria and the United Kingdom are the two countries that have thus far passed legislation to fully prohibit the breeding of animals for fur production.

Production of fox and chinchilla fur was banned in the Netherlands in 1995 and 1997, respectively. Following a long phase-out period, all fox and chinchilla farms were eradicated by 2008. The Dutch Parliament also voted in favour of a ban on mink production in the Netherlands in June 2009. This legislation, which must still be approved by the Dutch Senate, would lead to the phase-out of all mink farms by 2024. At present, the Netherlands is Europe’s second largest mink producer, with nearly 5 million mink being gassed to death there each year.

Although it is the world’s largest fur producer, Denmark recognised the inherent welfare problems associated with raising foxes in captivity and consequently prohibited fox farming in 2009. The Danish ban does, however, include a phase-out period for fox producers.

Sweden also effectively ended fox farming in 1995 through an amendment to its Animal Protection Ordinance, which required that foxes be kept in such a way that they can engage in natural behaviours, such as digging. This legislative change rendered fox farming economically unviable and all Swedish fox farms closed by 2000.

Finally, it should be noted that Croatia, which is expected to accede to the European Union in 2012, already passed a ban on fur farming in December 2006.

We now request the European Parliament to please consider banning the practice of fur farming in the entire European Union for the following reasons:

Animal welfare problems on fur factory farms:

The main species, namely mink and fox, that are reared on fur factory farms are still essentially wild animals. As the European Commission’s own Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) concluded in its 2001 report, "The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production":

“...these species, in comparison with other farm animals, have been subjected to relatively little active selection, except with respect to fur characteristics. There has thus been only a limited amount of selection for tameness and adaptability to captive environments.”

Mink and fox are carnivores, predators and highly inquisitive, active animals, with complex social lives. Unlike most other types of farm animals, who tend to be flock or herd species, mink are solitary by nature. Mink and fox are territorial and, in the wild, go to great lengths to defend their territories. These animals are unsuited to farming conditions and especially intensive breeding and rearing.

Kept in small, wire cages, animals on fur farms have been found to exhibit stereotypical behaviour (such as pacing along the cage wall, repetitive circling/nodding of the head, etc.) as well as self-mutilation (i.e. sucking or biting of the animal’s tail fur, or other parts of their pelts).

Studies on Swedish farms showed that 70-85% of the adult minks were performing stereotypic behaviours. This is a serious behavioural disorder and a clear sign that the animals are stressed and can not act naturally.

Killing methods for fur animals:

The methods used to kill fur animals also leave much to be desired. Mink, for example, are generally gassed to death after being placed one after the other in killing boxes.

Carbon monoxide (either pure source or associated with other gases) is the most widely used technique for killing mink. EU legislation continues to permit the use of gas produced from engine exhaust, despite scientific evidence which shows that even filtered exhaust gases induce unconsciousness in mink more slowly than pure CO, while first provoking excitation and convulsions.

EU legislation also continues to allow the use of carbon dioxide as a manner of killing mink. The aversiveness of carbon dioxide and the practical difficulties in achieving reliable high concentration of gas in the killing chamber make CO2 an unpalatable and unacceptable method for killing mink in groups. Semi-aquatic and highly evolved physiologically to hold their breath, mink are able to detect a lack of oxygen in their blood and are prone to hypoxia, which means that they can suffer particularly during gassing.

Finally, anal electrocution is also a permitted means of killing animals on factory fur farms. However, electrocution requires considerable restraint, and use of electrodes inserted into orifices. If cardiac arrest is caused without first inducing unconsciousness, there is potential for the animal to experience severe pain and distress. It should be noted that New York State banned electrocution of foxes; this method was also banned in the UK before fox farming was prohibited there altogether.

Fur farming legislation in the EU:

There is no specific EU legislation providing detailed animal welfare requirements for the keeping of animals for fur production. Fur factory farms are covered by Council Directive 98/58/EC, which lays down the general minimum requirements for the protection of all animals kept for farming purposes.

According to this Directive, EU Member States may maintain or apply stricter provisions than those laid down in this legislation, thus creating the possibility for individual countries to restrict or prohibit the keeping of animals for fur production.

In addition to the aforementioned legislation, killing methods for fur animals are also included Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. This legislation was revised and, from 1st January 2013, will be superseded by Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009.

Unfortunately, under the terms of this legislation, killing methods such as the use of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide (pure source, or associated with other gases) and anal electrocution will still be permitted in the killing of fur animals.

Impact on the environment:

The farming of animals for fur - while a profitable venture for fur farms - has proven to be an environmental disaster for the planet.

The intensive confinement of animals, in it's self, has always been of environmental concern. With thousands of animals being kept over a small area, the build-up of excrement is obvious concern, as it will either be soaked into the soil and end up in our ground water, or it will run off into near-by streams as a result of heavy rain. There is an obvious health factor involved with groundwater contamination. Each mink skinned by fur farmers produces about 44 pounds of feces in his or her lifetime.

The nitrogen of these farms also impedes the wintering of trees. This accounts for added frost damage and easier access for insects and fungi into the weakened tree.

Fur farms are a source of air pollution as well due to the tons of ammonia they produce every year!

Fur is only "natural" when it's on the animal who was born with it. Once an animal has been slaughtered and skinned, his or her fur is treated with a soup of toxic chemicals to "convert the putrefactive raw skin into a durable material" (i.e., to keep it from rotting). Various salts - along with ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, and other chromates and bleaching agents - are used to preserve and dye fur. Furs are loaded with chemicals to keep them from decomposing in the buyer's closet, and fur production pollutes the environment and gobbles up precious resources. Producing a fur coat from ranch-raised animals takes more than 15 times as much energy as does producing a faux-fur coat.

Considering the above facts and with all the natural and synthetic materials available today, there is simply no justification for this disgusting industry to continue and we request the European Parliament to consider a ban on fur farming in the entire European Union.

The Decline of Political Protest

by DIANA JOHNSTONE - AUGUST 28, 2012

Paris.

Once upon a time there was an organization called Amnesty International which was dedicated to defending prisoners of conscience all over the world. Its action was marked by two principles that contributed to its success: neutrality and discretion. In the context of the Cold War, the early AI made a point of balancing its campaigns between prisoners from each of three ideological regions: the capitalist West, the communist East and the developing South. The campaigns remained discreet, avoiding ideological polemics and focusing on the legal and physical conditions of captives. Their aim was not to use the prisoners as an excuse to rant against an “enemy” government, but to persuade governments to cease persecuting non-violent dissidents. It strove successfully to exercise a universal civilizing influence.

Since the end of the Cold War, the work of Amnesty International has become more complicated and more difficult. Back in the early days, most of the “prisoners of conscience” were held either in the Soviet bloc or in the US satellite dictatorships in Latin America, which facilitated symmetry without unduly offending the U.S superpower. But especially since the Bush administration’s reaction to September 11, 2001, the United States has increasingly become the world’s most notorious jailer. This has brought an organization whose core is Anglo-American under conflicting pressures. While it has protested against such flagrant abuses as Guantanamo and the abusive jailing of Bradley Manning, it appears to be under pressure to “balance” such punctual criticism by blanket denunciations of governments targeted for regime change by the United States. In the case of U.S.-backed “color revolutions”, human rights organizations such as AI and Human Rights Watch are enlisted not to defend specific political prisoners, but rather to denounce general abuses which may or may not be seriously documented. The United States has increasingly managed to take control of AI for its own foreign policy campaigns.

A milestone in this takeover came last January, when the talented State Department official Suzanne Nossel was named as executive director of Amnesty International USA. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Ms Nossel played a role in drafting the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on Libya. That resolution, based on exaggeratedly alarmist reports, served to justify the UN resolution which led to the NATO bombing campaign that overthrew the Gaddafi regime. Credited with coining the expression “smart power”, taken up by Hillary Clinton as a policy slogan, Ms Nossel has won international recognition for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, thereby positioning the United States as a vanguard of human rights against the world’s many traditional societies, especially those whose regimes U.S. “smart power” wishes to embarrass, isolate, or even overthrow.

In its new phase, AI, like Human Rights Watch and other Western “humanitarian” organizations, has ceased to make any distinction between genuine repression of dissident thinkers and the sort of repression that is triggered by deliberate provocation, that is, by actions whose sole purpose is precisely to provoke repression, in order to accuse a targeted regime of being repressive. The Serbian group “Otpor” pioneered this sort of action, following teachings of Gene Sharp. Actions which anywhere in the world would be considered disorderly conduct are elevated to the level of Victor Hugo eloquently defying Napoleon III.

Neither the quality of dissidence nor its context seem to matter. And nobody stops to ponder seriously how to deal with provocateurs who deliberately break the law in order to be arrested. Should the law be suspended especially for them? Or what? Arresting them falls into a trap, but not arresting them would arouse complaints from indignant citizens who dislike such exhibitionism. It is a real dilemma.

Amnesty International has devoted extraordinary attention to the Pussy Riot case, while totally ignoring, for instance, the threat of U.S. prosecution that led Julian Assange to seek political asylum.

What is most notable about this attention, and the attention of the Western media in general, is its tone. The tone is by no means a diplomatic appeal intended to persuade authorities to free the women in question. Rather, it is a tone of provovation.

For instance:

“Masha, Nadia and Maria, who are being detained for their peaceful performance of a protest song in a cathedral, could very well be carted off to a labor camp in Siberia where they will be at risk of rape and other abuses.” (All stress is from the original texts, which I received from the organizations cited.)

“Pussy Riot’s crime? Singing a protest song in a church.

“Amnesty International is mounting a strong global response to help keep Pussy Riot’s case front and center. Help us send a truckload of colorful ski masks to President Putin in protest.

Today’s verdict is emblematic of increased efforts by President Putin and his cronies to stifle free speech in Russia. That’s why we’re sending President Putin as many colorful masks, calledbalaclavas, as we can. Donate $20 or more to send a mask to Putin. … It is clear that Russian authorities are trying to silence these women and instill fear in other activists — don’t let them succeed.”

This is a tone that can only make it more, not less, politically difficult for President Putin to overturn the court’s ruling and grant amnesty and early release to the young women.

Amnesty International, like Western media, have constantly simplified the case in terms designed to suggest that Russia is returning to Stalinist rule of the 1930s. The French tabloid Libération splashed across its front-page photo of the three women, “To the GULAG for a song”.

Paying the Price

Avaaz, the on-line protest organizer, went farther.

“Russia is steadily slipping into the grip of a new autocracy …Now, our best chance to prove to Putin there is a price to pay for this repression lies with Europe.

“The European Parliament is calling for an assets freeze and travel ban on Putin’s powerful inner circle who are accused of multiple crimes. … if we can push the Europeans to act, it will not only hit Putin’s circle hard, as many bank and have homes in Europe, but also counter his anti-Western propaganda, showing him that the whole world is willing to stand up for a free Russia.”

The whole world? Is this really a major concern of the whole world?

Avaaz goes on:

“What happens in Russia matters to us all. Russia has blocked international coordination on Syria and other urgent global issues, and a Russian autocracy threatens the world we all want, wherever we are.”

The world we all want? Or the world Hillary Clinton wants?

At a so-called “Friends of Syria” (meaning supporters of Syrian rebels) meeting in Geneva last July 6, Hillary Clinton lashed out against Russia and China for blocking US-sponsored Syrian regime change initiatives in the United Nations. “I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all — nothing at all — for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price,” Clinton warned.

What Hillary wants, Hillary gets – at least in the narrow world of the “international community” made up of the U.S., its NATO satellites and their totally obedient media and NGOs.

Avaaz concludes: “Let’s join together now to show Putin that the world will hold him to account and push for change until Russia is set free.”

Now think about this. “We”, the signers of Avaaz petitions, aspire to “show Putin” that despite being legally elected President of Russia, the outside world is going to “push for change until Russia is set free.” Set free by whom? Pussy Riot? When did they, when could they, win an election? So how is Russia to be “set free”? By a no-fly zone? By U.S. drones?

Russia must “pay a price” for obstructing U.S. designs for Syria. Is Pussy Riot part of the price?

The chorus of Western media, pop stars and other assorted self-styled humanitarians have all echoed the notion that the Pussy Riot women were jailed “by Putin” because of an innocent song they sang against him in a church. But where is the evidence that they were arrested by Putin? It seems they were arrested by police on a complaint by the Orthodox Church, which did not appreciate their hijinks on the high altar. Churches tend to considers that their space is reserved for their own rites and ceremonies. The Catholic Cathedral in Cologne called the police to arrest Pussy Riot copy cats. It was not the first time the Pussy Riot group had invaded an Orthodox church, and this time the offended ecclesiastics were fed up. The group had demonstrated “against Putin” several times previously without being arrested. So where is the proof that they were “jailed by Putin” as a “crackdown on dissent”?

Putin is on record, and on video, as saying he thinks the women should not be harshly punished for their stunt. But hey, Russia has a judicial system. The law is the law. Once the women were arrested on a complaint by the church, the wheels turned, a trial was held, they were convicted and sentenced by a judge on the basis of complaints by offended Christians. It is an interesting detail that the witnesses failed to hear any mention of Putin – they were simply offended by the cavorting and the dirty words uttered by the masked performers. It seems that the “song”, if that is what it was, and the anti-Putin lyrics, if one can call them that, were added subsequently to the video put on line by the group.

So why was this “a crackdown by Putin”? Because, once the West labels a disobedient leader of a foreign state a “dictator”, his state no longer has a judicial system of its own, free elections, independent media, freedom of expression, contented citizens – no, none of that, because in the collective groupthink of the West, every “dictator” is Hitler/Stalin combined, and nothing bad that is done or happens in his country is a result of anything but his own wicked will. In the end, of course, his greatest aspiration is probably to “kill his own people”. But Avaaz, Amnesty International and Libération are vigilant…

Of course, it would be absurd to imagine that citizens of Russia, or any other country, are all contented with their leaders, even if they elected them by an overwhelming majority. Even democratic countries offer only a limited choice of presidential candidates to their voters. But after centuries of Tsarist autocracy, invasion by Mongols, Napoleon, and Hitler; Bolshevik revolution, Communist single-party dictatorship, then the economic and social collapse of the Yeltsin years, Russia has nevertheless now largely adopted its own version of Western capitalist democracy, complete with respect for religion.

And here is an oddity: the West, which used to aim its intercontinental ballistic missiles at “atheistic communism”, does not seem at all satisfied that the Orthodox Christian Church has re-emerged as a respected component of Russian society. The Western criterion for a free society has changed. It is no longer freedom to practice a religion, but freedom to practice a form of sexuality condemned by religion. Now, this may be an important improvement, but since it has taken the Christian West two thousand years to arrive at this level of wisdom, it should be a little bit patient with other societies lagging a decade or so behind.

It is a notorious constant of Russian history that its leaders are torn between emulating Western Europe and reasserting their own traditions – what is called Slavophilia. After a period of Westernizing, the Slavophiles usually triumph because the West rudely rebuffs the friendly overtures of the Westernizers. This gives the more aggressive Western leaders the perfect excuse to use force and coercion against the “backward” Russians. It seems to be happening again, with a particularly bizarre post-modern twist.

Many informed commentators have pointed out that Pussy Riot is not a “rock band” made up of singers and musicians. They compose no songs, they make no recordings, they do not sing and dance at concerts for fans. At best, they could be described as “performance artists” along the lines of the nutty Doonesbury character “J.J.” Their art consists of attracting attention by, among other things, taking off their clothes and copulating in a museum or masturbating with a dead chicken in a supermarket. (All to be seen on line.)

This is called protest art. It is provocation. What does it provoke? According to the practitioners of this sort of thing, who tend to think of themselves as vastly more clever than ordinary mortals, it is meant to wake up the sluggish masses, teach them by example to be free, to break taboos, to defy authority.

Clever performance art may make a political point people can understand. But what is the message from public sex with dead poultry?

The West, or at least Western media, politicians and humanitarians, seem to get the message. They interpret Pussy Riot as a significant political protest against Vladimir Putin.

A small percentage of Russians, especially those who regularly visit U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul in his Moscow embassy for spiritual and material encouragement, may also see it that way.

But it is a fair bet that even more Russians see Pussy Riot’s exploits as an expression of “Western decadence”. Especially when they see the entire West cheering and even imitating their actions. And indeed, in its readiness to use anything and everything to embarrass a government obstructing U.S. geopolitical goals, Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy establishment is favoring a widespread backlash against perceived Western corruption and decadence. Whatever their intention, Pussy Riot is a gift to the Slavophiles.

And to the new Amnesty International and its followers, who instead of taking the trouble to write thoughtful letters on behalf of persecuted dissidents, are merely asked to contribute $20 (or more) for a rag with holes in it. Fun!

ISTANBUL, (SANA) – The International Affairs Committee at the Turkish Popular Front affirmed that what is happening in Syria isn't an internal political struggle; rather it's an external aggression in which imperialism uses its pawns to impose control.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Front affirmed its full support for Syria which has become a role model in confronting imperialism, stressing that what is happening in Syria is a clear imperialistic attack planned by masters and executed by pawns, while "bourgeois" media depicts what is happening as a struggle between the people and the government.

The statement said that imperialism uses all its tools, including biased media which falsifies facts about Syria, promoting lies and rumors to control the world similarly to what happened in Iraq and Libya which were occupied to seize their petroleum, with the Front affirming that the Syrian people's steadfastness foiled the imperialistic media's efforts to justify an aggression against Syria.

The Front said that the imperialistic practices against Syria are illegal and immoral, with imperialistic forces admitting to carrying out espionage, surveillance and recruiting and training of terrorists of Turkey, in addition to hiring foreign mercenaries and distorting facts in the media to pass their own version of reality as real.

The statement decried Turkey's role against Syria, denouncing the use of its lands as camps for the opposition, providing logistic aid, and allowing intelligence agencies to train militants and send them to Syria.

The Front said that the shift in Turkey's position regarding Syria is due to the links between Turkey and the NATO and Syria's rejection of US hegemony, noting that contrary to Turkey, Syria doesn't have army bases of imperialistic forces, adding that Syria is debt-free, that its health and education sectors serve the people, and that its petroleum belongs to its people, not to companies.

The statement also noted that Syria is a state in which all members of society coexist, and that it has popular unions and organizations that decide their own activities and work.

The Front stressed that imperialistic forces, primarily the US, which killed over 250 million people around the world, have no right to impose themselves defenders of human rights.

The statement said that Syrians seek peace and stability, with the Syrian leadership's agreement to the plan of former UN Envoy to Syria Kofi Annan and the presence of international observers proving the Syrians' struggle to achieve said peace and stability. However, armed groups rejected Annan's plan and escalated operations and bombings in full sight of international observers who avoided addressing this, providing UN cover to the aggression against Syria.

The Front said that despite the opposition's claims that its movement and peaceful democratic, the media uncovered many facts that proved otherwise, showing the opposition's brutal crimes of beheadings, dismemberment, disemboweling and other sorts of murders.

The statement called on western media to accentuate facts and abandon the evasiveness and lies they employed with Iraq before, covering up the murder of 1.8 million Iraqis.

The Front said that the Syrian people struggle for the sake of the whole world, because Syria won't be the last country to be targeted, concluding the statement by saying that "Syria's struggle is the struggle of all of us… we will be unified with all our strength beside it."

23-year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by a bulldozer as she tried to prevent the Israeli army destroying homes in the Gaza Strip. In a remarkable series of emails to her family, she explained why she was risking her life

February 7 2003

Hi friends and family, and others,

I have been in Palestine for two weeks and one hour now, and I still have very few words to describe what I see. It is most difficult for me to think about what's going on here when I sit down to write back to the United States. Something about the virtual portal into luxury. I don't know if many of the children here have ever existed without tank-shell holes in their walls and the towers of an occupying army surveying them constantly from the near horizons. I think, although I'm not entirely sure, that even the smallest of these children understand that life is not like this everywhere. An eight-year-old was shot and killed by an Israeli tank two days before I got here, and many of the children murmur his name to me - Ali - or point at the posters of him on the walls. The children also love to get me to practice my limited Arabic by asking me, "Kaif Sharon?" "Kaif Bush?" and they laugh when I say, "Bush Majnoon", "Sharon Majnoon" back in my limited arabic. (How is Sharon? How is Bush? Bush is crazy. Sharon is crazy.) Of course this isn't quite what I believe, and some of the adults who have the English correct me: "Bush mish Majnoon" ... Bush is a businessman. Today I tried to learn to say, "Bush is a tool", but I don't think it translated quite right. But anyway, there are eight-year-olds here much more aware of the workings of the global power structure than I was just a few years ago.

Nevertheless, no amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it - and even then you are always well aware that your experience of it is not at all the reality: what with the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen, and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the army destroys wells, and the fact, of course, that I have the option of leaving. Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean. When I leave for school or work I can be relatively certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting halfway between Mud Bay and downtown Olympia at a checkpoint with the power to decide whether I can go about my business, and whether I can get home again when I'm done. As an afterthought to all this rambling, I am in Rafah: a city of about 140,000 people, approximately 60% of whom are refugees - many of whom are twice or three times refugees. Today, as I walked on top of the rubble where homes once stood, Egyptian soldiers called to me from the other side of the border, "Go! Go!" because a tank was coming. And then waving and "What's your name?". Something disturbing about this friendly curiosity. It reminded me of how much, to some degree, we are all kids curious about other kids. Egyptian kids shouting at strange women wandering into the path of tanks. Palestinian kids shot from the tanks when they peak out from behind walls to see what's going on. International kids standing in front of tanks with banners. Israeli kids in the tanks anonymously - occasionally shouting and also occasionally waving - many forced to be here, many just agressive - shooting into the houses as we wander away.

I've been having trouble accessing news about the outside world here, but I hear an escalation of war on Iraq is inevitable. There is a great deal of concern here about the "reoccupation of Gaza". Gaza is reoccupied every day to various extents but I think the fear is that the tanks will enter all the streets and remain here instead of entering some of the streets and then withdrawing after some hours or days to observe and shoot from the edges of the communities. If people aren't already thinking about the consequences of this war for the people of the entire region then I hope you will start.

Now the Israeli army has actually dug up the road to Gaza, and both of the major checkpoints are closed. This means that Palestinians who want to go and register for their next quarter at university can't. People can't get to their jobs and those who are trapped on the other side can't get home; and internationals, who have a meeting tomorrow in the West Bank, won't make it. We could probably make it through if we made serious use of our international white person privilege, but that would also mean some risk of arrest and deportation, even though none of us has done anything illegal.

The Gaza Strip is divided in thirds now. There is some talk about the "reoccupation of Gaza", but I seriously doubt this will happen, because I think it would be a geopolitically stupid move for Israel right now. I think the more likely thing is an increase in smaller below-the-international-outcry-radar incursions and possibly the oft-hinted "population transfer".

I am staying put in Rafah for now, no plans to head north. I still feel like I'm relatively safe and think that my most likely risk in case of a larger-scale incursion is arrest. A move to reoccupy Gaza would generate a much larger outcry than Sharon's assassination-during-peace-negotiations/land grab strategy, which is working very well now to create settlements all over, slowly but surely eliminating any meaningful possibility for Palestinian self-determination. Know that I have a lot of very nice Palestinians looking after me. I have a small flu bug, and got some very nice lemony drinks to cure me. Also, the woman who keeps the key for the well where we still sleep keeps asking me about you. She doesn't speak a bit of English, but she asks about my mom pretty frequently - wants to make sure I'm calling you.

Love to you and Dad and Sarah and Chris and everybody.

Rachel

--

February 27 2003

(To her mother)

Love you. Really miss you. I have bad nightmares about tanks and bulldozers outside our house and you and me inside. Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again - a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded. Jenny and I stayed in the house with several women and two small babies. It was our mistake in translation that caused him to think it was his house that was being exploded. In fact, the Israeli army was in the process of detonating an explosive in the ground nearby - one that appears to have been planted by Palestinian resistance.

This is in the area where Sunday about 150 men were rounded up and contained outside the settlement with gunfire over their heads and around them, while tanks and bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses - the livelihoods for 300 people. The explosive was right in front of the greenhouses - right in the point of entry for tanks that might come back again. I was terrified to think that this man felt it was less of a risk to walk out in view of the tanks with his kids than to stay in his house. I was really scared that they were all going to be shot and I tried to stand between them and the tank. This happens every day, but just this father walking out with his two little kids just looking very sad, just happened to get my attention more at this particular moment, probably because I felt it was our translation problems that made him leave.

I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed - the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here - recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people's vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can't.

If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours - do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.

You asked me about non-violent resistance.

When that explosive detonated yesterday it broke all the windows in the family's house. I was in the process of being served tea and playing with the two small babies. I'm having a hard time right now. Just feel sick to my stomach a lot from being doted on all the time, very sweetly, by people who are facing doom. I know that from the United States, it all sounds like hyperbole. Honestly, a lot of the time the sheer kindness of the people here, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the wilful destruction of their lives, makes it seem unreal to me. I really can't believe that something like this can happen in the world without a bigger outcry about it. It really hurts me, again, like it has hurt me in the past, to witness how awful we can allow the world to be. I felt after talking to you that maybe you didn't completely believe me. I think it's actually good if you don't, because I do believe pretty much above all else in the importance of independent critical thinking. And I also realise that with you I'm much less careful than usual about trying to source every assertion that I make. A lot of the reason for that is I know that you actually do go and do your own research. But it makes me worry about the job I'm doing. All of the situation that I tried to enumerate above - and a lot of other things - constitutes a somewhat gradual - often hidden, but nevertheless massive - removal and destruction of the ability of a particular group of people to survive. This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities - but in focusing on them I'm terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here - even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon's possible goals), can't leave. Because they can't even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won't let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can't get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide. Even if they could get out, I think it would still qualify as genocide. Maybe you could look up the definition of genocide according to international law. I don't remember it right now. I'm going to get better at illustrating this, hopefully. I don't like to use those charged words. I think you know this about me. I really value words. I really try to illustrate and let people draw their own conclusions.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Just want to write to my Mom and tell her that I'm witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I'm really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don't think it's an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and said: "This is the wide world and I'm coming to it." I did not mean that I was coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside.

When I come back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here is one of the better things I've ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.

I love you and Dad. Sorry for the diatribe. OK, some strange men next to me just gave me some peas, so I need to eat and thank them.

Rachel

February 28 2003

(To her mother)

Thanks, Mom, for your response to my email. It really helps me to get word from you, and from other people who care about me.

After I wrote to you I went incommunicado from the affinity group for about 10 hours which I spent with a family on the front line in Hi Salam - who fixed me dinner - and have cable TV. The two front rooms of their house are unusable because gunshots have been fired through the walls, so the whole family - three kids and two parents - sleep in the parent's bedroom. I sleep on the floor next to the youngest daughter, Iman, and we all shared blankets. I helped the son with his English homework a little, and we all watched Pet Semetery, which is a horrifying movie. I think they all thought it was pretty funny how much trouble I had watching it. Friday is the holiday, and when I woke up they were watching Gummy Bears dubbed into Arabic. So I ate breakfast with them and sat there for a while and just enjoyed being in this big puddle of blankets with this family watching what for me seemed like Saturday morning cartoons. Then I walked some way to B'razil, which is where Nidal and Mansur and Grandmother and Rafat and all the rest of the big family that has really wholeheartedly adopted me live. (The other day, by the way, Grandmother gave me a pantomimed lecture in Arabic that involved a lot of blowing and pointing to her black shawl. I got Nidal to tell her that my mother would appreciate knowing that someone here was giving me a lecture about smoking turning my lungs black.) I met their sister-in-law, who is visiting from Nusserat camp, and played with her small baby.

Nidal's English gets better every day. He's the one who calls me, "My sister". He started teaching Grandmother how to say, "Hello. How are you?" In English. You can always hear the tanks and bulldozers passing by, but all of these people are genuinely cheerful with each other, and with me. When I am with Palestinian friends I tend to be somewhat less horrified than when I am trying to act in a role of human rights observer, documenter, or direct-action resister. They are a good example of how to be in it for the long haul. I know that the situation gets to them - and may ultimately get them - on all kinds of levels, but I am nevertheless amazed at their strength in being able to defend such a large degree of their humanity - laughter, generosity, family-time - against the incredible horror occurring in their lives and against the constant presence of death. I felt much better after this morning. I spent a lot of time writing about the disappointment of discovering, somewhat first-hand, the degree of evil of which we are still capable. I should at least mention that I am also discovering a degree of strength and of basic ability for humans to remain human in the direst of circumstances - which I also haven't seen before. I think the word is dignity. I wish you could meet these people. Maybe, hopefully, someday you will.

February 8 2003
I got a number of very thoughtful responses to the email I sent out last night, most of which I don't have time to respond to right now. Thanks everyone for the encouragement, questions, criticism. Daniel's response was particularly inspiring to me and deserves to be shared. The resistance of Israeli Jewish people to the occupation and the enormous risk taken by those refusing to serve in the Israeli military offers an example, especially for those of us living in the United States, of how to behave when you discover that atrocities are being commited in your name. Thank you.

Received by Rachel on February 7 2003
I am a reserve first sergeant in the IDF. The military orisons are filling up with conscientious objectors. Many of them are reservists with families. These are men who have proven their courage under fire in the past. Some have been in jail for more than six months with no end in sight.

The amount of AWOLS and refusals to serve are unprecedented in our history as a nation as well as are refusals to carry out orders that involve firing on targets where civilians may be harmed. In a time now in Israel where jobs are scarce and people are losing their homes and businesses to Sharon's vendetta, many career soldiers - among them pilots and intelligence personnel - have chosen jail and unemployment over what they cold only describe as murder.

I am supposed to report to the Military Justice department - it is my job to hunt down runaway soldiers and bring them in. I have not reported in for 18 months. Instead, I've been using my talents and credentials to document on film and see with my own eyes what the ISMers and other internationals have claimed my boys have been up to.

I love my country. I believe that Israel is under the leadership of some very bad people right now. I believe that settlers and local police are in collusion with each other and that the border police are acting disgracefully. They are an embarrassment to 40% of the Israeli public and they would be an embarrassment to 90% of the population if they knew what we know.

Please document as much as you can and do not embellish anything with creative writing. The media here serves as a very convincing spin control agent through all of this. Pass this on letter to your friends. There are many soldiers among the ranks of those serving in the occupied territories that are sickened by what they see.

There is a code of honor in the IDF - it is called "tohar haneshek" (pronounced TOWhar haNEHshek). It's what we say to a comrade who is about to do something awful, like kill an unarmed prisoner or carry out an order that violates decency. It means literally "the purity of arms".

Another phrase that speaks to a soldier in his own language is "degle shachor" (DEHgel ShaHor) - it means "black flag". If you say, "Atah MeTachat Degle Shahor" it means "you are carrying out immoral orders". It's a big deal and a shock to hear it from the lips of "silly misguided foreigners"

At all times possible try to engage the soldiers in conversation. Do not make the mistake of objectifying them as they have objectified you. Respect is catching, as is disrespect, whether either be deserved or not.

You are doing a good thing. I thank you for it.

Peace,

Danny

Continuation of her email to her mother, February 28 2003
I think I could see a Palestinian state or a democratic Israeli-Palestinian state within my lifetime. I think freedom for Palestine could be an incredible source of hope to people struggling all over the world. I think it could also be an incredible inspiration to Arab people in the Middle East, who are struggling under undemocratic regimes which the US supports.

I look forward to increasing numbers of middle-class privileged people like you and me becoming aware of the structures that support our privilege and beginning to support the work of those who aren't privileged to dismantle those structures.

I look forward to more moments like February 15 when civil society wakes up en masse and issues massive and resonant evidence of it's conscience, it's unwillingness to be repressed, and it's compassion for the suffering of others. I look forward to more teachers emerging like Matt Grant and Barbara Weaver and Dale Knuth who teach critical thinking to kids in the United States. I look forward to the international resistance that's occurring now fertilizing analysis on all kinds of issues, with dialogue between diverse groups of people. I look forward to all of us who are new at this developing better skills for working in democratic structures and healing our own racism and classism and sexism and heterosexism and ageism and ableism and becoming more effective

One other thing - I think this a lot about public protest - like the one a few weeks ago here that was attended by only about 150 people. Whenever I organize or participate in public protest I get really worried that it will just suck, be really small, embarrassing, and the media will laugh at me. Oftentimes, it is really small and most of the time the media laughs at us. The weekend after our 150-person protest we were invited to a maybe 2,000 person protest. Even though we had a small protest and of course it didn't get coverage all over the world, in some places the word "Rafah" was mentioned outside of the Arab press. Colin got a sign in English and Arabic into the protest in Seattle that said "Olympia says no to war on Rafah and Iraq". His pictures went up on the Rafah-today website that a guy named Mohammed here runs. People here and elsewhere saw those pictures.

I think about Glen going out every Friday for ten years with tagboard signs that addressed the number of children dead from sanctions in Iraq. Sometimes just one or two people there and everyone thought they were crazy and they got spit upon. Now there are a lot more people on Friday evenings.

The juncture between 4th and State is just lined with them, and they get a lot of honks and waves, and thumbs ups. They created an infrastructure there for other people to do something. Getting spit on, they made it easier for someone else to decide that they could write a letter to the editor, or stand at the back of a rally - or do something that seems slightly less ridiculous than standing at the side of the road addressing the deaths of children in Iraq and getting spit upon.

Just hearing about what you are doing makes me feel less alone, less useless, less invisible. Those honks and waves help. The pictures help. Colin helps. The international media and our government are not going to tell us that we are effective, important, justified in our work, courageous, intelligent, valuable. We have to do that for each other, and one way we can do that is by continuing our work, visibly.

I also think it's important for people in the United States in relative privilege to realize that people without privilege will be doing this work no matter what, because they are working for their lives. We can work with them, and they know that we work with them, or we can leave them to do this work themselves and curse us for our complicity in killing them. I really don't get the sense that anyone here curses us.

I also get the sense that people here, in particular, are actually more concerned in the immediate about our comfort and health than they are about us risking our lives on their behalf. At least that's the case for me. People try to give me a lot of tea and food in the midst of gunfire and explosive-detonation.

I love you,

Rachel

Rachel's last email

Hi papa,

Thank you for your email. I feel like sometimes I spend all my time propogandizing mom, and assuming she'll pass stuff on to you, so you get neglected. Don't worry about me too much, right now I am most concerned that we are not being effective. I still don't feel particularly at risk. Rafah has seemed calmer lately, maybe because the military is preoccupied with incursions in the north - still shooting and house demolitions - one death this week that I know of, but not any larger incursions. Still can't say how this will change if and when war with Iraq comes.

Thanks also for stepping up your anti-war work. I know it is not easy to do, and probably much more difficult where you are than where I am. I am really interested in talking to the journalist in Charlotte - let me know what I can do to speed the process along.
I am trying to figure out what I'm going to do when I leave here, and when I'm going to leave. Right now I think I could stay until June, financially. I really don't want to move back to Olympia, but do need to go back there to clean my stuff out of the garage and talk about my experiences here. On the other hand, now that I've crossed the ocean I'm feeling a strong desire to try to stay across the ocean for some time. Considering trying to get English teaching jobs - would like to really buckle down and learn Arabic.

Also got an invitation to visit Sweden on my way back - which I think I could do very cheaply. I would like to leave Rafah with a viable plan to return, too. One of the core members of our group has to leave tomorrow - and watching her say goodbye to people is making me realize how difficult it will be. People here can't leave, so that complicates things. They also are pretty matter-of-fact about the fact that they don't know if they will be alive when we come back here.

I really don't want to live with a lot of guilt about this place - being able to come and go so easily - and not going back. I think it is valuable to make commitments to places - so I would like to be able to plan on coming back here within a year or so. Of all of these possibilities I think it's most likely that I will at least go to Sweden for a few weeks on my way back - I can change tickets and get a plane to from Paris to Sweden and back for a total of around 150 bucks or so. I know I should really try to link up with the family in France - but I really think that I'm not going to do that. I think I would just be angry the whole time and not much fun to be around. It also seems like a transition into too much opulence right now - I would feel a lot of class guilt the whole time as well.

Let me know if you have any ideas about what I should do with the rest of my life. I love you very much. If you want you can write to me as if I was on vacation at a camp on the big island of Hawaii learning to weave. One thing I do to make things easier here is to utterly retreat into fantasies that I am in a Hollywood movie or a sitcom starring Michael J Fox. So feel free to make something up and I'll be happy to play along.
Much love Poppy.

28 Aug 2012 - An Israeli court rejected all claims of negligence in a civil lawsuit brought by the family of US activist Rachel Corrie.
“I reached the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the bulldozer driver,” said Judge Oded Gershon, reading out his verdict at Haifa District Court in northern Israel.
The judge said he found no case for negligence on the part of the Israeli army, and that the military police investigation – which found she had been killed by falling earth as a result of her own irresponsible behaviour – had been properly conducted.
He said her death was the result of an accident and rejected claims that key videotape evidence had been destroyed.